It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What are your favorite 9/11 debunking tactics?

page: 21
20
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

That is a complete fallacy, because there is no reason falling floors should have caused other floors to fail.


Lie


Remember the connections were extremely strong.


Quantify exteremely


You have to agree if you to support the OS, because otherwise they would have failed before the trusses could pull in the columns


lie


let alone the fact that sagging trusses can't put a pulling force on the columns in the first place.


lie


Weight and gravity are not the only forces acting on the collapse


lie



you all seem to ignore resistance, and you never seem to account for it.


lie


Buildings are designed with mass resistance. For the collapse to have continued to failure the KE would have had to increase


true


which of course it cannot


lie


as it would be lost to deformation, heat, sound etc
.

how much?


The only way it could increase is if something was acting on it other than gravity.


lie


The rubble of the floors did not stay in the towers footprint in order to increase any mass,


lie

[quotepost collapse shows the majority of the rubble was ejected in 360d arc around the towers.

and how much DURING the collapse?


Even if it did a building can not simply collapse itself from it's own weight,


lie


as all buildings are designed with an FoS, of at least 4-6 for high rise buildings.


lie



Which means redundancy, the buildings connections could hold far more weight than they were required to.


how far?


If they had the force to not break allowing the trusses to pull in columns,


strawman


there is no reason they would fail from a floor dropping on them.


lie


Remember it all started with one floor falling


lie


For the top to collapse the way it did, both towers, the core itself is what must have failed not the floors.


true. and it did due to heat and impact damage, etc...




posted on May, 25 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

If the connections were strong enough to not fail when the trusses pulled in the columns


strawman


then why did they fail when a floor dropped on them?


he told you. static load vs dynamic load.


And no 'static load' is not the answer.


lie


Your magic term that you think explains everything explains nothing.


lie.


So can you explain why the connections were strong enough to pull in columns but not resists the collapse of a floor?


strawman


But again even if it all happened as you claimed the collapse still could not have been complete.


lie


The connections had to be able to resist the collapse.


lie


If all the floors stayed in one piece, and pancaked, there would be a stack of floors in the footprint. But we know for a FACT that floors did not stay in one piece


true


and it is evident post collapse that the floors were ejected during the collapse.


lie


the core had to have failed not the floors.


true. and the ext columns to initiate collapse



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by openyourmind1262

Then I ask them to clap their hands 11 times in one second.



this has got to be the NEW stupidest thing I've ever read coming from a truther.

And that's saying a lot...



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by maxella1
Whos' face is deforming ?


The face of the building. The north face. What, are you high or something?


Be nice !

please.

I thought you were talking about your face.

So just to make sure I understand, can you explain exactly what's happening to the face?



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Fluffaluffagous
 


double post Fluffy.



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by openyourmind1262

Then I ask them to clap their hands 11 times in one second.



this has got to be the NEW stupidest thing I've ever read coming from a truther.

And that's saying a lot...


You think it's stupid because you can clap 11 times in 1 second ?



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by maxella1
Whos' face is deforming ?


The face of the building. The north face. What, are you high or something?


Be nice !

please.

I thought you were talking about your face.

So just to make sure I understand, can you explain exactly what's happening to the face?


It's deforming in that picture, because the internal collapse has caused around half of the building to fall inward, damaging the inside of the entire building. The wall essentially bends due to being free-standing, and as it falls, the windows shatter due to debris and simple deformation.



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   
C'mon now, deforming?

There were windows blown out about 7 stories underneath the penthouse before it collapsed, with squibs ejecting from the east side simultaneously. As the windows in question blew out, there were simultaneous squibs to the right.



^West squibs^



^East squibs^ - Pay attention to the smoke on the left as it ejects out a split second before the shock-wave breaks the windows.



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by jlm912
 


You can see the deforming. I point it out in a video I made, breaking down the things happening in the video. I should probably make a new one soon with a better copy of the video:




posted on May, 25 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Okay, allow me to reiterate...

I have no doubt the face was deforming, but the smoke and windows blowing out underneath the penthouse suggests to me that the collapse was initiated from explosives on core columns that were supporting it. The evidence that would have made one of our points practically indisputable would be video of the base during the collapse. I have not found one. Are you aware of any such footage?

ETA: Good job on the vid, though.

edit on 25-5-2012 by jlm912 because: (no reason given)


ETA: Also, I wasn't asking about the base footage to detract from the argument. What I meant was that due to the fact of the top floors obviously falling down on top of the base, it takes failure of the lower-most structure. If we could find such footage, we could possibly determine whether it simply collapsed or if there is evidence of explosives.
edit on 25-5-2012 by jlm912 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jlm912
Okay, allow me to reiterate...

I have no doubt the face was deforming, but the smoke and windows blowing out underneath the penthouse suggests to me that the collapse was initiated from explosives on core columns that were supporting it. The evidence that would have made one of our points practically indisputable would be video of the base during the collapse. I have not found one. Are you aware of any such footage?

ETA: Good job on the vid, though.

edit on 25-5-2012 by jlm912 because: (no reason given)


I am not aware of such footage, though some have come close, they all seem to start after the penthouse caves in. I have looked long and hard for any footage of any of the towers' bases. The videos that would show it are missing the couple seconds of the beginning of each collapse. It's kind of suspicious to my eyes, but I don't know how someone could pull off such a wide-spread cover-up.



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by ANOK

That is a complete fallacy, because there is no reason falling floors should have caused other floors to fail.


Lie




When do the people who talk about falling floors specify how many connections there were all around the inner and outer edges of the floor?

Are they claiming all of them gave way at the same time? So if they didn't give way at the same time then all of the weight did not come down at once. You can't even specify the weight of the steel. So without even knowing that and the number of connection you can't say how much overload was required to break the next floor loose.

You are accusing someone of lying abut something you BELIEVE but cannot explain.

Really dumb.

psik.



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 




It's deforming in that picture, because the internal collapse has caused around half of the building to fall inward, damaging the inside of the entire building. The wall essentially bends due to being free-standing, and as it falls, the windows shatter due to debris and simple deformation.


Be honest now..Do you really see a free-standing wall falling inward in this photo?




posted on May, 25 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by Varemia
 




It's deforming in that picture, because the internal collapse has caused around half of the building to fall inward, damaging the inside of the entire building. The wall essentially bends due to being free-standing, and as it falls, the windows shatter due to debris and simple deformation.


Be honest now..Do you really see a free-standing wall falling inward in this photo?



Yeah. See the way the left (east) wall is bending backward (north) compared to the rest of the building? That's probably how the building just North of Building 7 got damaged by debris.

But it's not so much falling inward as just bending in another direction. The building was crumpling and falling at this point.



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Fluffaluffagous
 


You need to grow up and stop calling me a liar.

If you think I'm wrong then present your evidence. I am not lying about anything, just calling it as I see it.
Isn't it against T&C to to constantly call someone a liar with no evidence to prove they lied.

Obviously physics is not your strong point, otherwise you would explain your reasoning, not just call someone a liar.

The OS is lie and has been proven so.

How about start by explaining how the resistance was removed allowing the collapse to accelerate? And yes it did accelerate, it had to, otherwise it would have slowed. It either accelerated to overcome resistance, or the resistance was removed.

MODS can we put a stop to this sort of nonsense immature replies to thought out and relevant posts?


edit on 5/25/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


It is a crazy occurrence that all released footage of the collapse from within a few blocks away have the initiation cut out. As you said, it's hard to finger a specific entity working in a cover-up when even a couple news stations have those few seconds missing in videos that were aired that same day. However, I can't help but notice what seems like intentional visual and audio cuts in videos that have been released by NIST years after-the-fact in videos that are otherwise continual...



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by Varemia
 




It's deforming in that picture, because the internal collapse has caused around half of the building to fall inward, damaging the inside of the entire building. The wall essentially bends due to being free-standing, and as it falls, the windows shatter due to debris and simple deformation.


Be honest now..Do you really see a free-standing wall falling inward in this photo?



Yeah. See the way the left (east) wall is bending backward (north) compared to the rest of the building? That's probably how the building just North of Building 7 got damaged by debris.

But it's not so much falling inward as just bending in another direction. The building was crumpling and falling at this point.


I guess you can't be honest, hah?



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   
But Varemia the walls did fall inwards as evidenced by post collapse pics...




Walls from all four sides did the same thing. That means the building fell symmetrically.

If the collapse was from fire the outer walls would have been under the rest of the rubble, because to get them to fall on top requires very carefully planted and timed explosives.

If the collapse was asymmetrical then again the outer walls would be under the rubble, not on top.

Simple physics, object always fall to the path of least resistance. Inwards against the mass of the building is not normally the path of least resistance for the outer walls. It can only become the path of least resistance if that resistance is removed instantly.

It is obvious that the center of the building was collapsed first, penthouse kink, that allowed the outer walls to fold inwards. That is classic implosion demolition. Nothing any of you can say will change that fact. All you can do is deny reality and evidence, and call ATS members liars.


edit on 5/25/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Fluffaluffagous
 


Then lets see you clap your hands 11 times in one second. You can't smart arse.



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by jlm912
 


You can see the deforming. I point it out in a video I made, breaking down the things happening in the video. I should probably make a new one soon with a better copy of the video:



That's a good video which actually makes it even harder for you to explain what is happening to the right hand side of the building when the windows blow out.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join